You know, Stephen Hawking, as in the famed British scientist with the incurable motor neuron disease that has left him nearly completely paralyzed.

Cameron went on to say that Hawking "has an unfair disadvantage, and that gives him a free pass on some of his absurd ideas," because what better way to disagree with someone than to imply their amyotrophic lateral sclerosis has been giving them a sympathy vote when it comes to their world-renowned scientific contributions?

Advertisement

The reason Cameron is slamming Stephen Hawking is because Hawking recently made the controversial statement that the notion of heaven is a “fairy story for people afraid of the dark." Cameron apparently disagreed with this, which isn't really surprising, since he's become a rather outspoken evangelist over the years.

I don't think Cameron's a nut job for having a different point of view, of course. I'm sure a lot of people who believe in heaven don't particularly appreciate having their faith described as a fairy story.

However, it's one thing to defend your beliefs, and something else entirely to insult a man's credibility based on the fact that he's disabled.

This isn't the first time Cameron has spoken out against science—a while ago he described Darwin's The Origin of Species as the "Bible of the atheists," claiming evolutionary theory to be both untrue and the driving force for some of the most horrendous catastrophes of the 20th century, including Adolf Hitler.

Actually, Cameron, we atheists don't have a Bible. It kind of comes with the territory, but never mind, let's get back to what you were saying about whether or not you could accept it if your own children end up believing in evolution?

Could I accept it? Yeah sure. I accepted a lot of things that are not true before I was able to sit down and listen to more than one side and think things through the issues.

Ooookay then. Clearly he's a man of strong convictions (and poor grammar). After all, this is the same guy who fully supports the deliciously pornographic belief that the banana is the atheist's worst nightmare:

Personally, I can't buy the banana straw man argument because 1) if the easy-to-eat banana is proof of god, who's behind the design of the pineapple? 2) as it turns out, humans artificially mutated the now-seedless banana into the edible fruit it is today, and 3) JESUS, STOP PERFORMING FELLATIO ON THAT THING. But then again, I'm a happy godless heathen who'd rather listen to Stephen Hawking than Kirk Cameron any day.

What do you think about Kirk Cameron's comment that Stephen Hawking has an "unfair disadvantage"?